Presentation on theme: "Clarissa Gondim Teixeira"— Presentation transcript:
1Clarissa Gondim Teixeira A HETEROGENEITY ANALYSIS OF THE BOLSA FAMÍLIA PROGRAMME EFFECT ON MEN AND WOMEN’S WORK SUPPLYClarissa Gondim TeixeiraBonjour Madames et Monsieurs!Good Morning Ladies and Gentlemen!Thank you for the opportunity of presenting this paper.I am Clarissa Gondim Teixeira Associate Researcher at IPC-IG/UNDP.Ana Maria Hermeto is an Adjunt teacher at Federal University of Minas Gerais State in Brazil.
2Introduction Bolsa Família Program – the Brazilian CCT Motivation: Origin: PBF starded in 2003 as a result of the fusion of existing cash transfer programsMotivation:Achieve the MDGs – short-run poverty reduction (cash transfer)Universal policies failure to provide access to basic services – increase demand for education and health (conditionality)Breaking intergenerational poverty cicle – investment in humam capital (conditionality)Diversos autores diagnosticaram efeitos positivos do PBF. Entre eles CEDEPLAR (2005) aponta para impactos positivos no consumo de alimentos e educação. Soares et al (2006) e IPEA (2007) que analisaram a redução dos índices de pobreza e a melhoria da distribuição de renda. CEDEPLAR (2005), Cardoso e Souza (2004), Cacciamali, Tatei e Batista (2008) e Pedrozo (2007) diagnosticaram aumento da freqüência escolar, no entanto, apenas o último obteve redução nos indicadores de trabalho infantilDeseja-se testar a hipótese de que receitas desvinculadas ao trabalho constituem um choque na renda e podem proporcionar efeitos na função de produção domiciliar.
3Introduction PBF positive effects: Increase in food consumption and educational expenditures (CEDEPLAR, 2005) (IFPRI, 2010).Reduction in inequality and poverty rates (Chein, Andrade and Ribas, 2006)Increase in school attendance but no consensus on child labor effects (Cardoso y Souza, 2004), (Cacciamali, Tatei y Batista, 2008), (Pedrozo, 2007), (IFPRI, 2010).
4IntroductionFrequent criticism concerning negative effects on labor supply:No change in income – question the effectiveness of the programGenerates dependency – concern with exit doors
5Introduction Objectives of the paper are: Identify the existence of PBF´s impact on men and women´s participation rate and journey;Through the disaggregated analysis by sex, type of occupation and ‘dose-effect’:Explain the relation of receiving cash transfers and labor supply;Identify and characterise the individuals whose labour supply are the most elastic.
6Literature review Time allocation theory (Becker, 1965) Income and subsititution effects (Parker and Skoufias, 2000)Multiplier effects (Martínez, 2004)Informal work and production function (Cardoso, 1999)Additional worker (Stephens, 2001)‘Collective approach’ of intrahousehold resource allocation (Chiappori, 1992)
7Literature review Individual level Municipal level Increase in participation rate greater for women- Cedeplar (2005)Increase in participation rate - IFPRI (2010)Decrease in participation rate and labor hours for mothers -Tavares (2008)No effect participation rate, decrease in labor hours, increase for rural women - Ferro Nicollela (2007)Municipal levelNo effect - Foguel Barros (2008)Participation rate: increase rural, decrease urban – Ribas, Soares, Soares (2010)
8Bolsa Família Programme (PBF) Elegibility criteria: extremely poor families and poor families with children.TargetingSelf-declared income verified by cross checking with formal work dataAnalysis of Single Registry informationInclusion and exclusion errorsEligibility: Families whose monthly per capita income is below poverty line (US$46)Transfers:US$7 per child under 15 years old, pregnant or breast-feeding woman up to 3 members per family;US$23 for families below extreme poverty line (US$23).
9Bolsa Família Programme(PBF) Cash Transfers:Variable transfer of US$7.00 per child or nursing mother maximun of 3 per familiy (avoid incentive to childbearing);Fixed transfer of US$23.00 only for extremely poor families with or without children.Monthly per capita incomeTransfer values (2006)Below extreme poverty line(US$ )US$ 44.00US$ 37.00US$ 30.00US$ 23.00Between extreme poverty line(US$ 23.00) and poverty line (US$ 46.00)US$ 21.00US$ 14.00US$ 7.00Eligibility: Families whose monthly per capita income is below poverty line (US$46)Transfers:US$7 per child under 15 years old, pregnant or breast-feeding woman up to 3 members per family;US$23 for families below extreme poverty line (US$23).
10Bolsa Família Programme (PBF) Conditionalities:85% of school attendance;Vaccination for children under 6 years old;Pre and pos natal care for women.
11Bolsa Família Programme (PBF) Exit doors:Age of child (does not punish progression)Family per capita income above eligibility – single registriy updated every 2 years (vulnerability )
12Labor market of the poor Source: PNAD Own calculation.
13Labor market of the poor Men WomenSource: PNAD Own calculation.
14Labor market of the poor AIBF 82% Urban - PNAD 67% UrbanMen WomenSource: AIBF 2005 and PNAD Own calculation.
15Evaluation estrategyCross section using annual household data – PNAD 2006Cash transfer supplementQuasi-experimental designPropensity ScoreRe-weighted multivariable regressionCluster in the household level
16Empirical Investigation Source: PNAD Own calculation Source: PNAD Own calculation
17ResultsThe average effect on the probability of working is not significant for men or women.
18Results PBF does not cause a large work ‘discouragement’ Women are more sensitive to an income shock
19Results Work hours Men Women Rural -1.08 *** -0.34 Agricultural -0.81 -0.670.390.520.370.57Urban-0.35-1.31Non-agricultural-0.53*-0.950.280.290.51Source: PNAD Own calculation.
20Results Work hours Men Women Formal worker 0.16 -0.70 0.29 0.84 Rural Formal worker0.16-0.700.290.84Rural-0.62-1.00Agricultural-0.12-4.410.712.240.703.10Urban0.30-0.58Non-agricultural0.150.000.320.820.310.78Informal worker-0.88***-0.81*0.42-1.14-0.30-0.92**-0.560.560.400.60-0.63-1.38-0.83-1.060.390.620.410.58Source: PNAD Own calculation.
21Results Work hours Men Women Self-employed -0.35 -1.16 * 0.41 0.61 Self-employed-0.35-1.16*0.410.61Rural-0.260.19Agricultural-0.31-0.850.580.640.530.77Urban-0.44-3.23***Non-agricultural-0.40-1.600.561.131.02Paid worker-0.84-0.820.280.48-1.77-0.93-1.22**-0.660.520.780.490.86-0.24-0.73-0.54-0.890.320.57Source: PNAD Own calculation.
22Results Cost of labor hour (Minimal wage) Men Women -3.87 *** -0.76 -3.87***-0.760.900.511-0.93-0.801.211.6020.300.290.590.94Source: PNAD Own calculation.
23ResultsFormal work is found to be the least elastic due to workers’ rights and income stability;Urban self-employed women are the most sensitive to the PBF transfer;Informal paid rural jobs are the most sensitive for men.Unpaid workers reduce their labor hours in contrast with those earning one or two minimal wage
24Results Transfer Value (R$) Men Women 15 0.04 -0.46 0.41 0.66 30 -0.32 Women150.04-0.460.410.6630-0.32-0.530.450.8145-0.22-0.950.530.8250-1.49**-1.150.580.7565-0.20-0.100.380.5780-0.77-1.230.3695-1.07***-1.130.35
25ConclusionOne cannot affirm that PBF is responsible for generating dependence on account of income transfersThe results also confirm that the elasticity of labor supply varies according to sex and type of work.Higher effects were found for greater income shock intensitiesInexistência de efeito adverso do Bolsa Família na oferta de horas de trabalho uma vez que o impacto obtido é conseqüência da maximização da utilidade domiciliar e se comporta em consonância com a dinâmica do mercado de trabalhoA revisão de literatura mostra que não há impactos significantes no sentido de reduzir a participação no mercado de trabalho. Os resultados aqui obtidos mostram que o efeito na oferta de horas de trabalho é apenas marginal e para alguns grupos específicos, de forma que não há ameaça efetiva aos objetivos do Bolsa Família.